Husky spills 200k litres of crude into river

[Guest]

Right. So let us residents of BC be self determining of our future.

No. I'm a resident of Canada first.

[WestCoastRunner]

No. I'm a resident of Canada first.

Yes you are. However, those pipelines are in our backyards. Not yours.

[TimG]

I'm curious. Do the folks posting in this thread who are in support of the pipelines actually live here?

I live in BC and I think the pipelines should be built. The main difference I understand that society needs oil to run and that is not going to change simply because we stop Canadian companies from getting the best price they can for Canadian resources. I think it is shamelessly hypocritical for any BC resident that drives a car powered by oil but thinks that Canadian companies should be prohibited from selling oil while they live a life of convenience fueled by oil. Edited July 24, 2016 by TimG

[Guest]

Yes you are. However, those pipelines are in our backyards. Not yours.

Like I said, we have our share.

But before we get too far into this, I should just point out that my defence of pipelines here was purely in relation to the rail transport of oil.

[eyeball]

I realize oil will flow but I'll insist on using existing corridors and resist any new ones that have to blaze their way through a 1000 fish bearing watersheds like Northern Gateway.

As for oil tankers, I expect to see several hundred billion dollars placed in a spill clean-up account up front (repayable after the final shipment of Alberta's oil out of BC's ports).

Edited July 24, 2016 by eyeball

[TimG]

As for oil tankers, I expect to see several hundred billion dollars placed in a spill clean-up account up front (repayable after the final shipment of Alberta's oil out of BC's ports).

Placing absurd preconditions does not mitigate your hypocrisy. Specially, placing such conditions on oil shipped from Canadian ports does not do anything to stop oil being shipped from Alaskan ports which can affect the same fisheries. The only consequence of such conditions would be the closure of the Canadian industry while BC hypocrites import whatever they need from the US.

As for the fishermen: given the fact that no fisherman can make a living today without access to oil they are pretty high on the list of people who should be expected to accept that transporting oil can never be zero risk and it is a risk we need to accept.

Edited July 24, 2016 by TimG

[eyeball]

Until such time as I see you insisting that oil companies be subjected to the degree of monitoring and preconditions that fishermen are you should take your assessment of their ethics and put them back where the sun doesn't shine.

[TimG]

Until such time as I see you insisting that oil companies be subjected to the degree of monitoring and preconditions that fishermen are you should take your assessment of their ethics and put them back where the sun doesn't shine.

The monitoring of fishermen is based on the nature of the industry and the potential risks. The concerns about oil transport are different and require a different response. Specifically, there needs to be independent oversight that verifies that the oil companies are following the procedures they promised. Independent would mean stakeholders such as fishermen would be part of the committee conducting the regular audits. Edited July 24, 2016 by TimG

[Accountability Now]

Right. So let us residents of BC be self determining of our future.

If you want to be self determining then separate. Until then you are part of Canada and if it is determined that pipelines are in Canada's best interests then so be it.

[Peter F]

As for the fishermen: given the fact that no fisherman can make a living today without access to oil they are pretty high on the list of people who should be expected to accept that transporting oil can never be zero risk and it is a risk we need to accept.

We (not only fishermen) need to accept any and all risk? Perhaps, but only if we and fishermen had no access to oil at all. Since fishermen and we do have access to all the oil we could ever need - I have yet to see any notice of 'sorry, no fuel available today' anywhere.

The fact is we need not accept any risk at all beyond what we have already accepted. No need for increased risk and the oil would still get to consumers. We could probably induce measures reducing what risk is already there and still not see any reduction in oil supply

Edited July 24, 2016 by Peter F

[Peter F]

If you want to be self determining then separate. Until then you are part of Canada and if it is determined that pipelines are in Canada's best interests then so be it.

But what if its determined that a particular pipe-line is not in Canada's best interest, what then?

[msj]

I'm thankful that BC has a population big enough to have some political clout.

If we were NFLD the NGP would be started by now and "damn the Newfies" would be the attitude.

[Accountability Now]

But what if its determined that a particular pipe-line is not in Canada's best interest, what then?

Then it shouldn't go ahead.

[Accountability Now]

I'm thankful that BC has a population big enough to have some political clout.

If we were NFLD the NGP would be started by now and "damn the Newfies" would be the attitude.

You mean Southwest BC has population....the rest of BC is readily searching for other resource based revenue including LNG.

The only thing stopping NGP for BC is First Nations.

[TimG]

We (not only fishermen) need to accept any and all risk? Perhaps, but only if we and fishermen had no access to oil at all. Since fishermen and we do have access to all the oil we could ever need - I have yet to see any notice of 'sorry, no fuel available today' anywhere.

The fact is we need not accept any risk at all beyond what we have already accepted. No need for increased risk and the oil would still get to consumers. We could probably induce measures reducing what risk is already there and still not see any reduction in oil supply

A yes, the 'I got what I want go f**k everyone else" argument. It is a common attitude that underlines many political arguments such as the argument to cut "unnecessary" social programs. Canada needs exports to maintain its standard of living so a lot of economic activity will create product that exceeds the local demand. You could use the same argument to say fishing and farming product exports should be banned because "why accept increased risk to fish stocks and farm land if we can produce all that we need?". However, I bet you would not make that argument even though you don't work in fishing and farming because you recognize that your fellow citizens should have a right to earn a living. Yet, for some reason, that courtesy does not exceed to people working in the oil industry. Edited July 24, 2016 by TimG

[msj]

You mean Southwest BC has population....the rest of BC is readily searching for other resource based revenue including LNG.

The only thing stopping NGP for BC is First Nations.

Anytime I see a BC Liberal cabinet minister, which is about once per month right now, I ask them about their view on the NGP and I make it very clear that if they want my continued membership, support, money, and vote then they better walk a fine line on this.

I'm not First Nation's and usually support business (since I operate one) and the BC Liberals are wise enough to know that there are lots of people like me out there: ordinarily support pro-business government but will not tolerate the NGP.

This is something the proponents of the NGP don't comprehend to their detriment.

[Peter F]

A yes, the 'I got what I want go f**k everyone else" argument. It is a common attitude that underlines many political arguments such as the argument to cut "unnecessary" social programs. Canada needs exports to maintain its standard of living so a lot of economic activity will create product that exceeds the local demand. You could use the same argument to say fishing and farming product exports should be banned because "why accept increased risk to fish stocks and farm land if we can produce all that we need?". However, I bet you would not make that argument even though you don't work in fishing and farming because you recognize that your fellow citizens should have a right to earn a living. Yet, for some reason, that courtesy does not exceed to people working in the oil industry.

What is this garbage? Folks don't want a pipeline going through some place or other ergo they want to ban the oil industry? Thats nothing but bullshit.

No pipeline here, or there, and so we deem no one has a right to earn a living? Bullshit.

Do you think, in terms of your ridiculous argument, that people must wether they want to or not, purchase the goods provided by anyone producing them for the sole reason that to not purchase will therefore deny the producers 'right' to earn a living?

Your whole argument is bullshit.

[msj]

Your whole argument is bullshit.

Yep, agreed.

[TimG]

Folks don't want a pipeline going through some place or other ergo they want to ban the oil industry?

The fact that you deny the consequences of your positions do not make the consequences less real. The oil industry needs to get its product to coasts. BC happens to have a monopoly on access to the pacific in Canada so blocking pipelines through BC is the effectively the same as killing the oil industry and destroying all those jobs. I find it ironic that all of your views on sharing the wealth and importance of social infrastructure get tossed out the window as soon as it is inconvenient for you. I guess it shows how deep your convictions really are.

Do you think, in terms of your ridiculous argument, that people must wether they want to or not, purchase the goods provided by anyone producing them for the sole reason that to not purchase will therefore deny the producers 'right' to earn a living?

It has nothing to with my argument. My argument is based on the reality that earning the living requires transport of goods for sale and some people are always going to be living in an area which, in theory, gives them the power to prohibit the transport of goods and cause economic hardship to their neighbors. A civil society requires that those with the power to deny transport of goods choose not to because that is their duty as a citizen of a civil society.

It goes without saying that no one is obligated to buy any goods - allowing transport to people who will buy the goods is a completely different question.

Edited July 24, 2016 by TimG

[Peter F]

BC happens to have a monopoly on access to the pacific

Bullshit. I have once or twice sailed across the pacific from Montreal. Perhaps you mean 'cheap easy access' to the pacific. Perhaps you mean 'access to the pacific without going through American middlemen .

I find it astounding that these oil companies spent Billions developing the oilsands yet never realized that there was no way they could get their product to market. Now that they have blown billions, somehow or other people in BC have to fix thier blind foolishness for them.

The argument that BC has a monopoly on access to the goddamned Pacific Ocean is Bullshit.

so blocking pipelines through BC is the effectively the same as killing the oil industry and destroying all those jobs.

Bullshit, the oil industry functioned just fine all these years - is still functioning - and at no time, in the entire history of Albertan oil industry have they had pipelines through BC. Your contention that blocking the pipelines killed or is killing the industry is very obviously false.

allowing transport to people who will buy the goods is a completely different question.

They do have transport to markets in the Pacific or elsewhere. Proven by all the oil that has been shipped out and transported.

Edited July 24, 2016 by Peter F

[Argus]

Yes you are. However, those pipelines are in our backyards. Not yours.

They're in EVERYONE'S backyards. How do you think we get oil and gas to fuel our homes and cars?

[Argus]

What is this garbage? Folks don't want a pipeline going through some place or other ergo they want to ban the oil industry? Thats nothing but bullshit.

It's nothing but NYMBYism. We, as a nation, need to be able to get our oil to markets in order to pay for all the expensive programs we have. But no one wants a pipeline in their back yards. That's understandable, but we can't survive by giving into NYMBYs, or we'd have no highways, bridges, pipelines, airports, garbage dumps or anything else unpleasant.

[Argus]

Bullshit. I have once or twice sailed across the pacific from Montreal.

The idea of exporting to Asia by running a multi thousand miles pipeline to our east coast and then filling tankers from there is ludicrous. Besides, the same people and organizations fighting furiously against any pipelines going west and south are fighting just as furiously to prevent any pipelines going east.

The fact is this isn't so much about the fear of pipelines leaking as it is a determination to shut down the oil and gas industry in western Canada.

[TimG]

The argument that BC has a monopoly on access to the goddamned Pacific Ocean is Bullshit.

Now you are just getting absurd. Try looking at a map and look were the borders of Canada are. Only BC has access to the pacific ocean. Obviously the earth is a round ball so you can reach the Pacific ocean via any number of indirect routes but that does not mean the residents of BC do not have a civil obligation to allow the transport of goods from other provinces. If you want to argue that no one has any obligation to act civilly towards other citizens then you will be arguing to tear down most of the justifications for the social welfare state. Bottom line: the civil obligation to allow transport of goods is real and only people who are self-centered jerks ignore it.

oil industry functioned just fine all these years - is still functioning - and at no time, in the entire history of Albertan oil industry have they had pipelines through BC.

Alberta has been shipping crude via BC for decades via the port of Vancouver. But your argument is fallacious for a number of reasons: if BC thinks it can abrogate the moral obligation it has to allow transport of goods then why should other provinces act differently? Would you opinion be the same if everyone acted like BC or does your opinion assume that only BC is entitled to be unreasonable? If it the former then, yes, your attitude will kill the industry and destroy all of those jobs because no company will invest the billions required to develop new supply in Alberta if they cannot get it to market. Edited July 24, 2016 by TimG

[Peter F]

The idea of exporting to Asia by running a multi thousand miles pipeline to our east coast and then filling tankers from there is ludicrous.

Not ludicrous at all. M/V Cap Theodora loaded oil in Quebec city and serenely sailed to China where it recently finished offloading. Millions of $$ profit collected from the sale of the oil - Albertan oil to boot. Happens all the time. Not ludicrous in any way whatsoever. Certainly not as profitable! but profitable nonetheless.